Keep warm: throw another koran on the fire

So, flag-burning.

Good or bad?

Well, that's not precisely the question is it? We've had some veterans post that the right to burn the flag is among the rights they fought for. Sounds awfully American - how could they consider legislating against that?

0 Replies

Flag burning = bad. (Any flag...but, if that's how you get your kicks, so be it).

Passing a law against flag burning = bad.

0 Replies

Shameless political pandering, no surprise there . . .

0 Replies

Is it true that it's against the law to burn a dollar bill, though?

0 Replies

I've heard tell, but couldn't say. I rather doubt that there is a Dollar Burning Police out looking for miscreants, however . . .

0 Replies

I heard it too.

Why is it political pandering to be against an amendment to ban flag burning, though?

0 Replies

It is political pandering, in my never humble opinion, to support a constitutional amendment to make flag-burning illegal. The constitution should not be amended for frivolous reasons, and in particular, the first amendment ought not to be tampered with.

Quite apart from that, it takes two thirds of each house of the Congress to send an amendment to the states. Then three-quarters of the states must ratify, and recent amendments (within the last century) have had a time limit for ratification. Someone on Capitol Hill who rants about flag-burning does so secure in the knowledge that the issue is never likely to reach the point of the ratification of an amendment, so they are pandering--they get to wrap themselves in the flag, look all patriotic, while not actually doing anything.

0 Replies

It's a photo-op for politicians, not at all unlike when the district court ruled against the "under god" clause and the Senate and House gathered together on the steps of congress to pledge "one nation, under god" It's glitz and glamour for the weak minded containg zero substance.

0 Replies

Well, I'm not sure of the motives (may or may not be pandering), but I agree it's a bad idea. Those who want to will burn it regardless and even if it were made illegal, the sentence would probably be no more than a slap on the wrist.

0 Replies

So JW you opposed to shooting them at sunset?

0 Replies

Given that such an amendment is unlikely to be ratified (although the current rah-rah patriotism obsession makes it more likely), and given that members of Congress understand just how difficult it is to amend the constitution, i consider it pandering. It is noteworthy that this sort of thing has been proposed for the last forty years, and has gotten nowhere. When the slow news season hits Washington, this is just one of many dog and pony shows the pols haul out and dust off to show the folks back home that they're really doing something.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

So JW you opposed to shooting them at sunset?

Who we shootin? The flag burners? Nah. I'm not a huge fan of setting anything on fire, but they should be able to 'express' themselves LOL.

I agree with Setanta that we shouldn't tamper with the Constitution over something so trivial.

Could I personally do it? No. Does it make me uneasy to see others do it? Yes. But, really, it's just a piece of cloth and I can't see taking away someone's right to do with it what they choose.

PS to DTOM: I've always thought you could leave the flag up after sundown as long as it has a spotlight on it.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

thethinkfactory wrote:
What is going on in Gitmo is an attrocity. We all know it - we can't even ignore it - we simply say that it is okay in comparison to what "they" did.

What, exactly, do you find atrocious about Gitmo?

It's a no brainer, Tico, which is, precisely why you're asking.

0 Replies

June 28, 2006

US Joins EU; 26th Member State Will Not Have Veto Right

European Commissioners look on in kind appreciation as Chancellor Angela Merkel unfurls the newly redesigned American flag, festively presented by the US Senate earlier this week.

http://www.usconstitution.com/hinton.jpg

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

Is it true that it's against the law to burn a dollar bill, though?

Not against the law. You can burn stacks. You just cannot attempt to damage surrency and then reenter it into the system.

TF

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

thethinkfactory wrote:
What is going on in Gitmo is an attrocity. We all know it - we can't even ignore it - we simply say that it is okay in comparison to what "they" did.

What, exactly, do you find atrocious about Gitmo?

This is simple. Not that they are being tortured, or Korans are being burned... (This may be the case - but until we have proof - as hard as that might be - I will fall silent on that).

It is the fact that we have hundreds of people and have detained them, without rights, against our and international law, and have done so in the name of freedom and rights.

I want one simple thing. Give them the due process they are owed as human beings.

Attrocity may be a bit steep - but I don't think it is out of line. Due process is such an ingrained portion of our rights that it goes directly against the American conceptions of rights to deny it - no matter what any administration wants to term these detainees.

Furthermore, to hear the administration keep reminding us that they are 'bad men' and hope that sates our intelligence or sense of justice is a farce. Here is why: Innocent until due process proves them guilty. What can be disputed?

TF

0 Replies

Here's the text of H.J. Res. 10, proposing an amendment to the constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States:

The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.And here's why the government has a legitimate interest in a "flag protection amendment," according to the Citizens Flag Alliance:

-Preserving the values embodied by the flag: Protecting the flag from physical desecration preserves the values of liberty, equality and personal responsibility that Americans have passionately defended and debated throughout our history and which the flag uniquely embodies. It is commonly accepted today that the traditional values upon which our nation was founded and which find tangible expression in our respect for our flag are essential to the smooth functioning of a free society. Flag protection highlights and enhances these values and thus helps to preserve freedom and democratic government. -Enhancing National Unity: The government has a fundamental interest in protecting the most basic condition of freedom; our bond to one another in our aspiration for national unity. With traditional unifying elements of American language, culture and heritage fraying, the flag remains a single unifying embodiment of our unceasing struggle for liberty and equality and our basic commitment to others. The flag affirms that without some aspiration to national unity, a free people and constitutional government cannot long endure. Protecting an Incident of our National Sovereignty: Finally, the flag is an important incident of our national sovereignty. The United States - like many other nations - displays the flag to signify national ownership and protection. By pronouncements in the earliest years of the Republic, the Framers of the Constitution made clear that the flag, and its physical requirements, related to the existence and sovereignty of the nation and that insults to the flag were matters of great national concern that warranted strict punitive action. In a letter to James Monroe concerning an attack upon an American frigate by a British war ship, James Madison asserted his view that "the dignity offered to the sovereignty and flag of the nations demands...an honorable reparation... [such as] an entire abolition of impressments from vessels under the flag of the United States..." Thomas Jefferson, moreover, considered violation of the flag worthy of "systematic and severe" course of punishment.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

So JW you opposed to shooting them at sunset?

Naw.....I propose we shoot the ingrates at .....sunRISE......just to impress upon their twisted brains that they won't see anymore......sunrises.

How about a party to burn the constitution and in particular the the 1st amendment..........no one seems to suggest that. What's the difference?

They are both symbols.

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
thethinkfactory wrote:
What is going on in Gitmo is an attrocity. We all know it - we can't even ignore it - we simply say that it is okay in comparison to what "they" did.

What, exactly, do you find atrocious about Gitmo?

This is simple. Not that they are being tortured, or Korans are being burned... (This may be the case - but until we have proof - as hard as that might be - I will fall silent on that).

It is the fact that we have hundreds of people and have detained them, without rights, against our and international law, and have done so in the name of freedom and rights.

I want one simple thing. Give them the due process they are owed as human beings.

Attrocity may be a bit steep - but I don't think it is out of line. Due process is such an ingrained portion of our rights that it goes directly against the American conceptions of rights to deny it - no matter what any administration wants to term these detainees.

Furthermore, to hear the administration keep reminding us that they are 'bad men' and hope that sates our intelligence or sense of justice is a farce. Here is why: Innocent until due process proves them guilty. What can be disputed?

TF

Thanks for the clarification. I thought that's what you meant, but wasn't sure.

Of course some might think the meals being served to the detainees constitute an atrocity. Eye of the beholder?

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
thethinkfactory wrote:
What is going on in Gitmo is an attrocity. We all know it - we can't even ignore it - we simply say that it is okay in comparison to what "they" did.

What, exactly, do you find atrocious about Gitmo?

It's a no brainer, Tico, which is, precisely why you're asking.

There you go again, JTT .... replying to questions not posed to you, and being insulting in doing so.

0 Replies

Keep warm: throw another koran on the fire

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know